I agree about the pricing, the upward creep of the Ford line left me in the dust, which is why I didn't even consider Ford in 2013, when I bought my Ram.

I'd give serious consideration to a "mid-size" truck, as I really dislike the upward growth of the "half-ton" pickups in the last 10 years. Half-tons are as big as three-quarter ton pickups of 10 years ago.

Who the hell needs a half-ton that can tow 10,000 lbs or more, that is the tail waggin the dog. Who the hell needs to use a step stool, or running boards on a non-4x4 half-ton???

Maybe too late, but on the other hand, if it get well in the 30 mpg range it maybe a winner.

Fuel prices are on the rise and the commutes are getting longer.

I beg to differ, PUTC, you're wrong.

What if it's actually smaller than the Global Ranger? Or better yet, let's wait and see.

#2 Why now? Because the consumer is changing. Baby boomers and millennials are not the same and have vastly different tastes. As each group ages the primary consumer is switching from the old guard to the new. Millennials generally prefer to have fun, or live, in and around cities where parallel parking and small parking garages are common place. It is much nicer to not have a road whale when navigating these areas.

I agree that they need to keep it from being too big. Even though I have a full size truck I keep a 1984 Nissan around just because it is so handy for small jobs. It is getting pretty ratty so I went and looked at the current trucks and they are so big that most of the convenience factor is gone and they don't give much better fuel economy.

I've commented about this before, but here is the biggest problem facing pickups in the mid size and compact segments.

Back in the 1970s when this segment came to life, gas was expensive and compact cars, with few exceptions, were front-engine, rear drive. Body on frame.

The small truck could be built using common parts from the manufacturers small car line-up, the same basic engines, trans, chassis parts and brakes, wheels.

Today's small car lineup is almost entirely front wheel drive and unitized body/frame. The engines are transverse. They have no driveshaft to speak of.

They basically have nothing in common.

What used to be a cheaply built and utilitarian little pickup has become an expensive and exclusive part of the company's lineup. The value proposition no longer works.

this is good article for Papa and gms who complain PUTC is favorable to Ford, in reality it should be titled, " 1 reason Ford doesnt need the Ranger, number in sales for 40 years."

@Nitro

PUTC wrote a compelling viewpoint here. It's gonna be fun to watch. GM has a mid size truck. Nissan and Toyota too.

Personally, I don't think there are very good practical reasons to buy one, but I bet a lot of truck buyers will take a good look at the new products from GM and Ford (and Honda).

As I've noted before many of the conditions have changed. Gas is cheap and trucks are more and more expensive.

I used to see the attraction of a smaller 2wd, four cylinder pickup with manual transmission as kind of a cheap to operate daily driver with some utility to it.

But now that I own a half ton, I wish I had gone ahead and bought a 3/4 ton. If I want to rent a skid-steer, or move a big load of round bales, or get a pallet of concrete retaining wall blocks, or even a load of pea gravel, my truck isn't big enough. It is very rare that I use it for commuting, it's mostly a farm truck.

The new "mid-sized" pickups are big in price, big in gas consumption, big in luxury features and small on capabilities. I think Ford was right the first time.

A lot of old foogies are still driving the old Rangers. I was waiting for Ford or Chevy to upgrade their old trucks for years. Never happened, then GM came out with the twins, a little bigger then I want and need. Now they add all the hi-tech stuff on them and up goes the price, Right now I am on the fence as to whether to buy a ZR2 or wait for the Ranger/Bronco. If the Ranger looks like the EU version, I'm out....

Hopefully I can buy the ZR2 in the WT version, as all I need is power windows, AC and a good radio

A lot of old foogies are still driving the old Rangers. I was waiting for Ford or Chevy to upgrade their old trucks for years. Never happened, then GM came out with the twins, a little bigger then I want and need. Now they add all the hi-tech stuff on them and up goes the price, Right now I am on the fence as to whether to buy a ZR2 or wait for the Ranger/Bronco. If the Ranger looks like the EU version, I'm out....

Hopefully I can buy the ZR2 in the WT version, as all I need is power windows, AC and a good radio

A lot of old foogies are still driving the old Rangers. I was waiting for Ford or Chevy to upgrade their old trucks for years. Never happened, then GM came out with the twins, a little bigger then I want and need. Now they add all the hi-tech stuff on them and up goes the price, Right now I am on the fence as to whether to buy a ZR2 or wait for the Ranger/Bronco. If the Ranger looks like the EU version, I'm out....

Hopefully I can buy the ZR2 in the WT version, as all I need is power windows, AC and a good radio

Montesa_VR - - -

Yeah.

But (and you knew there was a "but" coming) smaller pickups have some advantages, like my Nissan Frontier:
1) They are easier to manage in tight parking spaces;
2) They get better fuel mileage (on the average);
3) They average a lower price;
4) They haul and tow enough for most suburbanites;
5) They fit in conventional garages.

So Ford may have been right for 10 years ago, but really missed good market analysis this time around.

I solidly agree with PUTC on their analysis. It's simply too late for Ford. They will be seen as the "also ran" in a market segment already saturated with five good offerings. Maybe the will have better success with the new Bronco.

=======================

I am really hoping the new Ranger is kept to the size used elsewhere in the world. I had an F150 for a year, love it, but I couldn't park the damn thing in the Seattle area. I want a capable truck, but have no need for the huge size and towing capacity. I do however have a family of four and we are all tall. I need that 4 door cab to sit 4 adults comfortably. I need to tow a few thousand pounds with ease and I need to be able to haul stuff on occasion.

ps, I've seen the T-6 Ranger in Australia. It is barely big enough. About 2 inches more leg room than the Colorado sold here in the US.

Ford, please don't FUBAR this one!

The new Ranger does go against everything Ford has been saying, but I doubt that will be a big deal. Will it cannibalize F-150 sales? Hard to say; GM has still sold the heck out of their full-sizers since the new Colorado and Canyon came out. Would Ford simply be adding sales capacity based on the F-150's success, and would the reputation carry over to a new, smaller truck? Potentially; for sure they would probably outsell Nissan and Honda year one, and maybe even get close to GM, who is edging closer to Tacoma's sales totals.

My guess is Ford would cut a decently sized portion of the market for themselves, making the segment larger than it currently is merely for Ford's involvement again.

The new Ranger does go against everything Ford has been saying, but I doubt that will be a big deal. Will it cannibalize F-150 sales? Hard to say; GM has still sold the heck out of their full-sizers since the new Colorado and Canyon came out. Would Ford simply be adding sales capacity based on the F-150's success, and would the reputation carry over to a new, smaller truck? Potentially; for sure they would probably outsell Nissan and Honda year one, and maybe even get close to GM, who is edging closer to Tacoma's sales totals.

My guess is Ford would cut a decently sized portion of the market for themselves, making the segment larger than it currently is merely for Ford's involvement again.

FYI, that 2 inches extra space I refer to is for the people in the rear seat.

I couldn't agree more with this article. I have made several arguments in the past as to why the mid sizer is here to stay. NMGOM has just listed may of my past arguments. One point I would like to add is that these mid sizers are lighter and will be more fun to drive and handle along with the more manageable size. A test drive is gonna win over a lot of people who currently think they want a full size. I personally know 2 people who traded off their Siliverado's for a GM mid sizer. As for the Ranger fate, reread the heading of this article.

@Tim Himmelberger

You don't say HOW tall your family members are but I can tell you that my 6 foot 2 inch self cannot bear the rear seating in anything except a big crew cab, or a full sized SUV like the Suburban or Expedition.

A short trip in the smaller vehicles, like going to church I can handle, but more than a few minutes is a chore. Especially since there are more comfortable options.

If the initial price of purchase, or the savings on fuel, meant anything, I could accept it on the idea of being frugal. Unfortunately the midsizers only really deliver in regard to a slight improvement in parking.

But for my money the extra space is key.

I have a '91 Ranger that I have had since new and has nearly 370,000 miles on it. Great reliable truck that still runs well but I don't trust it anymore for long trips. I have been waiting for Ford to come out with a new Ranger but I could not wait any longer. I bought a Colorado and Chevy got a new customer. Ford dropped the ball by trying to only push full size trucks.

NMGOM, I totally agree about parking and garage issues. A full-sized crew cab long bed is like a school bus. You'll be walking from the far edges of the lot if you take one to the mall, and don't even think about going into a parking ramp with one.

Pricewise, Truecar reports that a Silverado 2500 work truck with 4WD and the gas engine goes for around $33,000, while the Colorado work truck with 4WD and the four banger sells for $28,000. Move up to the 6-cylinder engine and the double cab configuration and the price difference shrinks to insignificance.

So the choice is more about your intended use than anything else. For a lot of people the smaller trucks make sense. I'd rather be able to fill the box with firewood without worrying about whether I'm hurting the truck or creating a road hazard.

I personally want one and I may wait for one. I want the Ford F-150 4wd system in a smaller package. The Colorado is odd looking (it looks normal with an 80-year-old driving it, however) and doesn't have a selectable locker. The Nissan is old and the global model which will probably be reincarnated and brought to the U.S. is somewhat unimpressive. The Toyota is expensive but is the next best option. Huge trucks are cumbersome off-road and don't fit well in most garages. If you don't have giant loads/toys to haul, the smaller truck is a much better hunting/camping/fishing/off-road vehicle that can also work as a daily driver.

1. Pickup Truck Buyers Have Long Memories...
“Our guess is the vast majority of the Ranger's following have already found substitutes…” I disagree… The average age of a car/truck in the US is between 11-12 years old. Take me for example. I’ve been driving my 2002 F-150 SuperCrew for just over 15 years and hit 80K on the odometer just last week. I’ve been holding out on more selection in the mid-size market. Two new GM trucks, a freshened up Tacoma and an outdated Frontier hardly want to make me run out and buy one right now. Competition in the category will only make our options better down the road. I’m okay with waiting 2-3 more years to see the new Ranger as well as any new Ram/Jeep and redesigned Frontier before I pull the trigger on a new mid-size. (BTW, I have no interest in a bloated full size no matter the price)

2. Why Now?...
“For the longest time, Ford argued that truck buyers didn't want a smaller pickup if they could get a larger one for a similar price with similar fuel-economy numbers.” I’ve always disagreed with Ford’s thought on this. Bigger is not always better. And todays mid-size trucks are almost the same size as my ’02 F-150. I’m 5’8” and 200 lbs, married w/ 2 kids. While I need a crewcab for the family and would prefer a longbed for the additional payload volume (mulch & compost), I don’t need a full-size. My hobbies are motorcycles, camping, hiking/backpacking, paddling and mountain biking and I have no need for a bigger truck that’s hard to park in the city and burns more gas…. Waste not, want not.

3. Will Pricing Separate the Ranger From the F-150?...
“Ford will have to careful about keeping enough separation between entry-level F-150s and fully loaded Rangers, especially since average transaction prices for the Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon are well into the mid-$30,000s.” When you commonly see loaded full-size window stickers in the $50k-60k range, I would suspect the Ranger price range to be right there with its competition who also have full-size siblings. I’d also be willing to bet with the HUGE success of the Raptor that Ford would be crazy not to do the same thing with their Ranger. The Chevy ZR2 and Tacoma TRD Pro could easily see some competition from Ford in the future.

4. Current Global Ranger Is Too Big...
The global Ranger is truly not that much bigger than the last Ranger we saw in the US despite what some may believe. Based on PickupTrucks.com infographic from March of 2011. The biggest 2011 Ranger was a (SuperCab with 72” bed) was 203.6” long with 125.9” wheelbase. The biggest spec 2012 “global” Ranger (CrewCab with 61” bed) is 211” long with a 127” wheelbase. Comparing the two designs, a 7.4” length and 1.1 inch wheelbase difference aren’t that drastic. Even if Ford were to give the current “global” CrewCab Ranger a 6’ bed and therefore bump the wheelbase a foot, the overall length would be 223” with a 139” wheelbase. The new Colorado CrewCab with 6’ bed is 224.1” long with a 140.5” wheelbase.

5. Ford Dealers Have Preached 'Don't Compromise'...
“Chevy and GMC dealers did not spend years telling potential buyers that mid-size pickups didn't make sense. Ford dealers did and then steered buyers to an F-150.” I didn’t compromise…. And I didn’t buy a Ford fulls-size either since I want a TRUCK (not a Transit van) that’s smaller than the current bloated full-size models.

Do I think Ford is too late with the NA Ranger? No, but they obviously didn’t listen to their customers over the last few years. They could have been a solid player (even winner) in the mid-size market with the T6 Ranger, but they didn't even show up for the game.

The Colorado is odd looking (it looks normal with an 80-year-old driving it, however) and doesn't have a selectable locker.
Posted by: Kevin Henry | Jan 24, 2017 12:44:07 PM

The Tacoma is odd looking (and is commonly seen with an 80-year-old driving it) and doesn't have a diff that can hold up to a locker.

@Kevin Henry

Have you driven a Ridgeline?

@papajim
I have not driven a Ridgeline. I'm sure it's a good reliable vehicle. The reviewers seem to like it a lot. I currently drive a Honda Accord and will continue to do so until I decide what pickup I really want. I'm not really partial to its appearance all that much either, but mainly I don't think it fits my wishes for off-road. It would generally work just fine for me, I'm sure, but it's those times when I'd want to take it where I used to take my FJ40 Landcruiser that I think I'd be left wanting more. I see your point but I don't think I'll go that direction. ....But I'm driving a Honda that I take good care of so I've got lots of time to think about it.:)

I would like a smaller truck again. The midsize trucks now are narrower than their full size brothers but just as long and pretty high. But with this new Ranger my main issue is appearance. If you hold your hand over the picture, over the bed and back door, would you have guessed that was a truck on your first look? It looks more like a low end SUV. Not aggressive looking at all. And I heard there will be no standard cab option. That's what I will be looking for in late 2018.

@Kevin

The Ridgeline isn't everybody's cup of tea, but it is a reasonable AWD vehicle and one with a better than average record for customer satisfaction.

For those whose driving is less than 10 percent off road, it would be a great choice, as long as the driver and passengers are average height/weight.

Not only is Ford not to late with the ranger, they are coming in at the perfect time. The ranger will jump right to the top in sales just like it was before. Because any vehicle that has the beautiful blue oval on it is going to be successful! !!! Especially a truck. MILITARY. GRADE!!! WOOOOOOOHH!!!!

1. Want a smaller truck like Ranger used to be, and built on a frame, not unibody.
2. Only need 2 doors, not even extended cab
3. Would like radio, power locks & windows, cruise control
4. I DON'T need a built in mobile phone, GPS and navigation, WIFI, Bluetooth, "Advanced Sound", Satellite Radio, Video Players or screens, Touch Screens, Cameras, Self Parking, Self Stopping, Power Seats, Heated anything except the cab itself, Power tailgates, "luxury" packages. Heck I don't even want carpet.

All this just runs up the price and is totally unnecessary.

Will we be able to ever purchase such a wonder vehicle again?

I was not pleased when Ford discontinued the US Ranger. Ford choose not to update the Ranger in meaningful ways that would have prevented the erosion of sales and marketing share in compact/midsized trucks. I think it was a mistake.
I have been waiting for Ford to return to this segment, perfectly willing to wait, my well maintained 2008 Ranger FX4 is a young 200k- looks new, runs new. Hard to kill them, have had several most going past 350K before selling to someone else only to see them drive for more years and another 100k. No doubt when Ford enters it will be Ford wins.

I don't think a new Ranger is too late. If anything a midsize truck is a very suitable replacement for the midsize sedan offering the flexibility that many families need. Many do not want a full size truck. I know several families that have recently bought new midsize trucks as the Colorado/Canyon as a 2nd family vehicle especially crew cabs. The stereotype of just old men driving a smaller trucks or just cheapskates will buy a smaller truck is not true. Those who really want a cheap vehicle are more likely to buy a Kia or Hyundai compact car.

@Jeff S

this concept worked back in 1979 when gas was expensive and the smaller trucks were cheap.

Today it's just the opposite. Gas is cheap and the little trucks cost too damn much.

Ford is very late to the dance---unless they bring a plug-in or a diesel or something else that sets them apart in this segment, they will be too late.

Jeff S is right and Pops you are hoping against for what will be another Ford Enters Ford Wins.History is not on your side.

Narrower Midsize is not bad. But when they reduce the bed length too much, that's an issue. A midsize with a real 6'3"-6'6" bed length would be great. Real because none of the current midsizers go past 6'1" at the top of the bed. They measure from the bottom. Sneaky marketing! A couple more inches in the crew section too, better than the twins 35.8" dimension, would be great. And more cab forward like the Tundra so it will all still fit in a standard 235" garage. That's my ideal midsizer. Yah, it's pushing the boundary's of midsize, but if they limited to V6 engines only, with a more cab forward design, then that would reduce the front end dramatically, and be a lot of value in a truck.

I haven't updated the comparison list below in a while because nothing has changed from what I see. Kinda boring since I believe the broader market doesn't need a huge, high off the ground, 10000lb off-roader.

Dimensions below organized as: Rear Legroom, Bed length, Overall length (235” std garage):

Ram Quad__34.7"__6'4"__229.0"
Ram Crew__40.3"__6'4"__237.9" Only 1/2ton Crew cab with real 6’ box that’s almost garageable.
Colorado___35.8"__6'0"__224.6". (6' 2" at bottom only!)
Tacoma____32.6"__6'1"__221.3". Bed actually 6'1.5".
F150 Crew__43.7"__6'6"__243.7"
F150 Quad__33.5”__6’6”__231.9” (250.5”, 8’ bed)
Silverado___40.9"__6'6"__239.6"
Ridgeline___36.7"_4’11.5”_210.0" (5' 3.6" at bottom only!)
Titan_Crew _38.5”__6’6”__242.8” (38.5” small for 242.8”?)
Titan Quad__38.5”__5’6”__228.7”
Frontier_____33.6”__6”1”__219.4”
TundraQuad_34.7”_ 6’6”__228.9”(247.8”,8’box)Cab forward snub noise. 5” more legroom =234”
Tundra Crew_42.5”__5’6”__228.9” (crew cab with 6’6” not avail?)

I like my ranger. Small, light, compact 4x4. I can go where bigger trucks can't! I don't have kids or friends, so it's perfect lol. In all seriousness, I don't want to be bullied into a bigger truck. Or a pretty/pricey land Rover that doesn't leave the pavement! I am not a ford shareholder so there is nothing holding me to the next ranger. If it's too pretty - my next truck may just be a Toyota or chev!

1. Want a smaller truck like Ranger used to be, and built on a frame, not unibody.
2. Only need 2 doors, not even extended cab
3. Would like radio, power locks & windows, cruise control
4. I DON'T need a built in mobile phone, GPS and navigation, WIFI, Bluetooth, "Advanced Sound", Satellite Radio, Video Players or screens, Touch Screens, Cameras, Self Parking, Self Stopping, Power Seats, Heated anything except the cab itself, Power tailgates, "luxury" packages. Heck I don't even want carpet.

All this just runs up the price and is totally unnecessary.

Will we be able to ever purchase such a wonder vehicle again?

Probably not, if you have to have #1. As long as you can live with unibody, yeah, they can build that.

A frame adds weight..which means you need more motor, which means...and you fall down the rabbit hole of waste.

A front wheel drive small pickup with a 1.5-2.0 liter motor that gets 30+ MPG under 20k with a 4' bed (1000lb capacity) extra vertical depth and possibly a tailgate extender to get you to 6'

This silly article is fake news.

@fxdx1450

The argument you have is with the publisher, sir.

The title of the article is the New Ford Ranger Is Too Late. Maybe you'd like to take that up with them.

Or maybe you'd care to discuss it with Ford Motor Co. management--after all it was your advice they've chosen to ignore.

Either way, life is short--eternity is a long time.

Don't spend your life waiting like some homely chick waiting for mr. right GM, Nissan and Toyota (heck even Honda) currently build a truck that could make you happy. Great financing deals are available. See if you qualify!

Ford only killed the Ranger because the factory it was built in was older than dirt and they were desperate to shut it down. It's taken till now to revive it because they couldn't find another factory to build it in

Actually Ford canceled the Ranger for a number of reasons, including:

A high percentage of buyers wanted cheap reliable transportation, that can take abuse.

Buyers wanted an inexpensive vehicle

The Ranger's platform did not natively support side air bags

Difficulty meeting roll-over standards

Difficulty meeting the new CAFE regulations, which basically state that the minimum MPG was determined by vehicle wheel track. So a narrow vehicle automatically has to hit a higher MPG metric. For the old Ranger this was 31 MPG by 2016. A wider Ranger would have a lower MPG standard under the current regulations.

Yes I said cheap and then said inexpensive as the next item. I did that deliberately.

In an alternate timeline, Ford would have moved the ranger to a 2010 explorer-like platform. The Ranger might have survived.

@Mackintire

Why wasn't the (Explorer) Sport Trac successful?

Built on the RWD Explorer platform with 4 wheel independent suspension and available with a V8 and six speed

Should have been a winner.

I think there is no better time than now. These reasons listed don't apply. The market trend changes every year.

I think there is no better time than now. These reasons listed don't apply. The market trend changes every year.

That meeting US Safety Standards is now really hurting Ford Globally. Mustang was tested by ENCAP in Europe and received a horrific rating.
http://www.caradvice.com.au/516889/ford-mustang-gets-two-star-ancap-crash-rating/

Hopefully the US Ranger does not have declining safety standards?

"Mustang is also the first Ford North America ‘domestic’ product to be globalised. To the best of this writer’s knowledge all other ‘One Ford’ global products are essentially European designed vehicles. These include Mondeo/Fusion, Focus, Escape/Kuga and Fiesta."

Pretty bad PR for Ford, as the Mustang was a " Halo"car

A Sports Trac had a much smaller bed than the current midsize trucks and even the Global Ranger. A NA midsize truck based on a Global Ranger would sell. The Global Ranger is a completely different animal than a Sports Trac. Why would a new Ranger need a V-8 when the EcoBoost V-6s and I-4s would have more than enough power? Most manufacturers are offering less V-8s. Ford sells more F-150s with EcoBoost V-6s than with V-8s, so why would Ford even think of offering a V-8 in a midsize truck? As long as Ford offers a midsize truck in an extended cab and crew cab with an I-4 and an Eco-Boost V-6s along the lines of what the Colorado/Canyon then they will do well. Ford could offer a rear seat delete on the extended cab Ranger but they should have a flat rear floor instead of the rear floor in the Colorado/Canyon delete seat.

True there will be fleet buyers and budget buyers that will buy more base models but there will be lots of sales of well optioned crew cabs. What is wrong with selling a few base models. The Base Colorado/Canyon is far from being the base truck of the past especially with power windows, rear backup cameras, power driver's seat, air conditioning, intermittent wipers, stereo with USB plug for music, and a host of other features. Not too long ago that was considered top trim. i could easily live with a Base Colorado/Canyon and if the future Ranger is equipped likewise that would be just as good. Doesn't really matter if Ford said in the past that they were not going to build a smaller truck, if Ford builds a new Ranger it will sell.

@ Robert Ryan - a reminder to stay on subject, this is a truck site...thank you.

These were valid points until GM kind of proved that wrong when they introduced the colorado. I say Kind of because it seems to have hurt their full size sales. Or at least ford has gained market share and GM has lost market share on full size trucks since introduction of the new colorado/canyon. Hard to say if that's because people are buy less chevy full size in favor of the gm midsize twins or because the recent full size ford redesigns have just been a hit. Maybe a little of both. I for one think the mid size truck market is going to be overcrowded soon if it's not already.